I think BP has done an excellent job. I am rapt with what we got!

Scully & Trengove obvious picks.

I thought Pick 11 would have been used on a tall. But after looking at Gysberts highlights. I think we may have a gun midfield/forward. He looks really good and is 190cm. He will be a gun!

To get Gawn at 34 was really good. He can take a pack mark and kick a goal too. His size is something we miss!

He is only 17 too. So I think he might be the tallest player very soon. 208cm! He is a monster!

Fitzpatrick could be a steal. I wouldnt just expect him to ruck. Thats Gawns job. But will rotate with him at times. He looks very capable of playing forward and back. 201cm he moves like a midfielder. He will be hard to match up on I think and is a very versatile player.

It would be great to pay out Newton and Meesen. They have not shown enough!

We need 2 spots on our rookie list! 2 of Grimes, Patrick, Panos or a Temel would be great!

I also think Cale will be spend alot of time in the forward line and turn out to be a forward target.

I bloody hope so. I think Morton, Grimes and Sylvia will have a massive say in where we finish next year. They must continue to step up.

I can't see a problem in picking up midfielders in a midfielders draft would have liked to see Ball in the red and blue, I hope they have done the right thing only time will tell fingers crossed.

Tonight, the MFC drafted the following layers;

Scully, Trengove, Bonus, Bonus, Bonus & Bonus.

If any of those Bonus players play 100+ games of good, solid football for the Club, it will be our greatest draft ever.

Don't anyone complain about who/what we didn't get, get excited about what we DID get.

Having spent the evening at ground zero - the MoM meeting - I would have to say that all of Melbourne's wishes came true this evening.

Chris Connolly ran the evening as only CC can - with lots of humour mixed in with some very incisive and informative discussion relating to the draft.

First off he made it clear that our first two picks in order were Scully and Trengove - no surprise there.

Then he indicated that with pick 11 it was unlikely that the club was going to take a KPP. The club's recruiters were simply not impressed, with the feeling that John Butcher was the pick of this group but he had some problems with his kicking for goal and field kicking. The club felt Butcher was likely to go to Port Adelaide. He nominated Jordan Gysberts, Jake Melksham and Kane Lucas as the likely selection. He favoured Gysberts and said that the club was very impressed by him and keen to pick him up at this stage of the draft.

Then came one of the highlights of the evening from my point of view. In answer to whether the club would be picking Luke Ball, CC made it very clear that Ball wasn't in the club's plans - there was no place at the club for him. The club had constantly used Ball to highlight the fact that he might have been a leader of the club's extremely young list but it was more with the purpose of ensuring that the public was made aware of how good our youth were. Ball wasn't really a contender.

So who to take at 18? CC came right out with Luke Tapscott. It was either him or Max Gawn. Both were taken by the club, the latter at 34. Even at this stage CC was prepares to suggest the club wanted Jake Fitzgerald at 50 - and it came to pass!

Deja vu - Barry Dawson 11.05pm -yesterday. It's a dog eat dog world this journalism thing, but happy to know e're on the same page. Almost literally...

My own reflection is that we are developing a pattern of recruiting solid characters with lots of grounding at the elite end of the sport. We now have eight players at the club born in 1991 and here's a common thread that links most of them:

Jack Watts - wins Larke Medal for b & f under 18 champs as a bottom aged player (i.e had another year at this age level had he not been drafted);

Sam Blease - played with Watts in Vic Metro under 18 champs also bottom aged;

Tom Scully - played two years with Vic Metro under 18s;

Jordan Gysberts - played two years with Vic Metro under 18s;

Jack Fitzpatrick - played two years with Vic Metro under 18s.

That's 5 players from the Victoria Metro under 18 championships all bottom aged and now together at the one AFL club.

But that's not all!

Luke Tapscott - played two years with SA under 18s and kicked a bag of 5 goals as a bottom aged player in a championship game; and

Jack Trengove - SA under 18 captain this year but who didn't play in the champs as a bottom ager. However, it seems he would have been selected but for the fact that he was on a tour to England as an elite cricketer; and

Max Gawn - didn't represent Vic Metro in either year but was on track this year before doing his ACL. The odd man out but I'm prepared to make concessions for 208cm ruckmen!

That elite thread in our recruiting should come to the fore in the next two or three years. The MFC is becoming a very attractive proposition for the future.

It's been mentioned a few times that we have a raft of talented kids who are going to finish growing up together, playing and learning the game together at the same club. The sort of unity this could bring to our team is amazing. These guys are looking at being the core of a premiership contender for a decade.

Further to the WJ's post,

We now have 16 teenagers in total which includes 3 rookies. For the age bracket of [20 - 24] we have 19 players which includes 3 rookies. When you consider that either Meesen or Newton could be rookied by GC before us which would give us the option of rookieing another teenager (if desired), then the numbers would almost be in equilibrium.

Gysberts the club simply rated highly, at a rung above all but a couple of other options, and we took him.

Tapscott was at a very good 'price', Gawn also.

It's possible that we'll end up with one of those 'all time great steals' with Fitzpatrick.

He was in Champion Data's top25 at the start of the year, after all.

I think this draft will go down as historic, a turning point where we cashed in on top picks, made good use of good picks, and got fantastic value from lower picks.

Still fingers crossed that Juice or the Meese get picked up in the PSD (we are committed to MacDonald) so we can Rookie list Dylan Grimes (who would now be our next preference). Otherwise, we may have to trade Brad Miller t Gold Coast for Grimes and a pick next year .

I'm mostly happy with the result, it seems to me that we have stuck to a few tried and tested drafting theories. Outside of the first two picks, which would have been the same from any recruiter.

Pick players who can kick, Emma quayle said Tapscott was possibly the best kick in the draft, Gysberts was second in Buckley's kicking drill. A hawks policy from a couple of years back.

Leave Ruckmen for late speculative picks. Dean Cox and John Meesen are the poster boys for this theory, for different reasons.

Pick players who have a long history of performing, not just 1 good year. See WJ's post.

Hard to make a call on character yet, but there is a hint of a no D***head policy when we avoided Taylor/Thorpe. I don't mean to say that Taylor is one, but I think it would be fair to say that he is a bigger risk than most.

Edited November 26, 200915 yr by JACKATTACK

Having spent the evening at ground zero - the MoM meeting - I would have to say that all of Melbourne's wishes came true this evening.

Then came one of the highlights of the evening from my point of view. In answer to whether the club would be picking Luke Ball, CC made it very clear that Ball wasn't in the club's plans - there was no place at the club for him. The club had constantly used Ball to highlight the fact that he might have been a leader of the club's extremely young list but it was more with the purpose of ensuring that the public was made aware of how good our youth were. Ball wasn't really a contender.

W_J: Did you really buy that? I thought it was vintage CC spin. By saying we were essentially trying to get media to highlight our "up and coming list", we were also saying to the media that we have no leadership. And how exactly would other clubs thinking we might take Ball spook those clubs into a rash decision earlier in the draft?!

If they had taken questions from the crowd (other than the moron who heckled Bailey), I would have asked "If Luke Ball was never in our plans, can you tell me hand on heart if he said he wanted to play for the MFC you would have said thanks but no thanks?" Quite frankly, it's bull! Bailey said as much when he said Ball would have been perfect pick at 1 in the PSD. If we genuinely believed that, then we should have said at the end of trade week that we will pick up Ball at 18, but would prefer to do it via the PSD, and then given him his holiday to stew it over. If he didn't come and speak to us at that point, we could have again gone to the media and said "We are waiting on Luke Ball. We know he is a man of character, and we have no doubt he understands the draft rules. There is no way Luke would act to the detriment of his new club by not coming to speak to us". But unfortunately, unlike Voss, the MFC is not that ruthless.

But the draftees we did get seem very exciting.

But unfortunately, unlike Voss, the MFC is not that ruthless.

This I don't understand. Voss was clearly bluffing, just as Connolly was with the Ball talk. After all, they too had the opportunity to pick him, but didn't.

Absolutely stoked the only change I would have made was Lucas for Gysberts in the first 4 and the fact we took 2 Ruckmen with our final selections is probably a good thing. Scully, Trengove and Tapscott will be stars, don't know enough about Gysberts.

Disappointed we didn't take Grimes and thought Panos would have been worth a pick at 50 but I can live with that.

If you knew a bit more about Gysberts, do you think you still would have made that Lucas for Gysberts change ?

W_J: Did you really buy that? I thought it was vintage CC spin. By saying we were essentially trying to get media to highlight our "up and coming list", we were also saying to the media that we have no leadership. And how exactly would other clubs thinking we might take Ball spook those clubs into a rash decision earlier in the draft?!

If they had taken questions from the crowd (other than the moron who heckled Bailey), I would have asked "If Luke Ball was never in our plans, can you tell me hand on heart if he said he wanted to play for the MFC you would have said thanks but no thanks?" Quite frankly, it's bull! Bailey said as much when he said Ball would have been perfect pick at 1 in the PSD. If we genuinely believed that, then we should have said at the end of trade week that we will pick up Ball at 18, but would prefer to do it via the PSD, and then given him his holiday to stew it over. If he didn't come and speak to us at that point, we could have again gone to the media and said "We are waiting on Luke Ball. We know he is a man of character, and we have no doubt he understands the draft rules. There is no way Luke would act to the detriment of his new club by not coming to speak to us". But unfortunately, unlike Voss, the MFC is not that ruthless.

But the draftees we did get seem very exciting.

It sounds like Ball was never in our plans once he nominated for the ND.

Also speaks volumes about how we rate the guy on the field, that we would have been happy to pick him up for free, but never contemplated wasting a precious top 20 pick on him.

He was never in our plans as a National Draft selection. We fought hard for 2 years to get those picks, and we weren't going to blow them on a guy who is 25 and has a suspect body. Just as we wouldn't have picked McDonald in the ND had he chose to nominate.

There is a huge, huge difference between a PSD pick and a ND pick. Ball would have been tremendous value in the PSD, but is clearly not ahead of the likes of Gysberts and Tapscott.

It sounds like Ball was never in our plans once he nominated for the ND.

Also speaks volumes about how we rate the guy on the field, that we would have been happy to pick him up for free, but never contemplated wasting a precious top 20 pick on him.

He was never in our plans as a National Draft selection. We fought hard for 2 years to get those picks, and we weren't going to blow them on a guy who is 25 and has a suspect body. Just as we wouldn't have picked McDonald in the ND had he chose to nominate.

There is a huge, huge difference between a PSD pick and a ND pick. Ball would have been tremendous value in the PSD, but is clearly not ahead of the likes of Gysberts and Tapscott.

Correct. Which is why we should have either said "we are not interested" instead of foxing without purpose, or tried to force him into the PSD by virtue of the fact that he would be coming to us in any event.

Nasher: True Voss was foxing. But my point is, he wasn't timid ("Oh, we have no leadership and he would be great if he wants us"). He basically said "if we think he is our best choice, we will pick him and he will like it". Much more bold.

W_J: Did you really buy that? I thought it was vintage CC spin. By saying we were essentially trying to get media to highlight our "up and coming list", we were also saying to the media that we have no leadership. And how exactly would other clubs thinking we might take Ball spook those clubs into a rash decision earlier in the draft?!

If they had taken questions from the crowd (other than the moron who heckled Bailey), I would have asked "If Luke Ball was never in our plans, can you tell me hand on heart if he said he wanted to play for the MFC you would have said thanks but no thanks?" Quite frankly, it's bull! Bailey said as much when he said Ball would have been perfect pick at 1 in the PSD. If we genuinely believed that, then we should have said at the end of trade week that we will pick up Ball at 18, but would prefer to do it via the PSD, and then given him his holiday to stew it over. If he didn't come and speak to us at that point, we could have again gone to the media and said "We are waiting on Luke Ball. We know he is a man of character, and we have no doubt he understands the draft rules. There is no way Luke would act to the detriment of his new club by not coming to speak to us". But unfortunately, unlike Voss, the MFC is not that ruthless.

But the draftees we did get seem very exciting.

I believe Luke Ball was in the PSD plans for the MFC but not the ND plans.I think this was stated many times.

Anyway ,enough of Luke Ball! He is ancient history as far as Melbourne recruiting goes and it's getting tiresome talking about him!

Let's Luke ahead and be proud of the players we DID pick up and of our recruiting staff!

Correct. Which is why we should have either said "we are not interested" instead of foxing without purpose, or tried to force him into the PSD by virtue of the fact that he would be coming to us in any event.

Nasher: True Voss was foxing. But my point is, he wasn't timid ("Oh, we have no leadership and he would be great if he wants us"). He basically said "if we think he is our best choice, we will pick him and he will like it". Much more bold.

I dont think we could have "forced" him into the PSD. He and his manager were clearly intent on getting to Collingwood so the PSD was not out. I see no harm in foxing our interest so other clubs force their hand.

FWIW, I thought Voss had as much purpose in his foxing as MFC. He could have taken him before pick 30 but did not. And for the record, Connolly and Harrrington echoed Voss's sentiments a number of times in the Press.

I dont think we could have "forced" him into the PSD. He and his manager were clearly intent on getting to Collingwood so the PSD was not out. I see no harm in foxing our interest so other clubs force their hand.

FWIW, I thought Voss had as much purpose in his foxing as MFC. He could have taken him before pick 30 but did not. And for the record, Connolly and Harrrington echoed Voss's sentiments a number of times in the Press.

We did a bit of both in the press - flip-flopped so to speak. We said we wouldn't speak to anyone who wouldn't speak to us. Then we said we would be interested, somewhat like a pimply teenager too shy to ask for a date. Even afterwards we said we would have liked him (notwtihstanding that he didn't want us).

And I think we should have tried to use our strategic position in the PSD. I am not saying we would have succeeded. We could have played it more strategically, less erratically and more logically. So now we end up with the default in the PSD. A player we need least.

Edited November 27, 200915 yr by Choko

We did a bit of both in the press - flip-flopped so to speak. We said we wouldn't speak to anyone who wouldn't speak to us. Then we said we would be interested, somewhat like a pimply teenager too shy to ask for a date. Even afterwards we said we would have liked him (notwtihstanding that he didn't want us).

And I think we should have tried to use our strategic position in the PSD. I am not saying we would have succeeded. We could have played it more strategically, less erratically and more logically.

We declared an interest in Ball early. I am not sure when "We said we wouldn't speak to anyone who wouldn't speak to us." that we actually compromised ourselves when you think about that statement.

Ball would not speak to us (nor anyone else). He was not interested. I cant see how we could have used our PSD more strategically given Ball was focussed on the Pies and nominated the ND. Nothing MFC did affected the Ball outcome. He was never coming to us unless we took him in the ND. And it was clear it was never MFC's intention to do so.

But its all moot now. I am comfortable with the outcome. Taking Ball in the ND at say 18 would have been like paying good $$$ for a used car with no RWC, miles on the clock and known chassis damage.

But its all moot now. I am comfortable with the outcome. Taking Ball in the ND at say 18 would have been like paying good $$$ for a used car with no RWC, miles on the clock and known chassis damage.

Classic analogy, agree wholeheartedly. More than happy with the Luke we got.

My thoughts on the draft:

• I am wrapped that we went for the players who we thought were the ‘best available’ with our first four picks and we did not select for ‘needs’. (Interestingly it seems as though every club did the same thing in the first round.) This seems a sensible strategy as there is much greater dispersion in the talent levels at the top end of the draft.

• We were always going to be the big winners given we had the first two picks. Both Tom Scully and Jack Trengove are almost certain to be at least very good players.

• I rate Trengove higher than Scully and see him developing somewhat of a Luke Hodge and a Scott Thompson type player.

• Scully is certain to be a top possession winner and comparisons with Ben Cousins are not too far off the mark. At the moment his kicking is just fair by AFL standards, however, and he could develop into a player similar to Paul Licuria or Marc Murphy.

• We clearly put a greater premium on players who could use the ball (instead of athletes) than most other clubs.

• Our recruiters love private school boys.

• Our team is going to be very close knit in the years to come given the close bonds already formed between the recent draftees.

• I am unsure if Jordan Gysberts has the pace to be a top line player, but I am sure the club has done some homework in this regard. This will be one of the key picks which we will judge Barry Prendergast on in the future.

• I would have loved Jake Melksham to have fallen down one more pick. Essendon supporters would be wrapped to have him. He would have been fair compensation for McLean.

• I think Daniel Talia would have been a relatively safe pick at 11 and I think will be a good AFL player. But he does not look likely to be a key forward at AFL level and I expect him to develop into a defender in a similar mould as Jared Rivers. As these type of zone-off defenders have been exploited more and more in the AFL over the last few years, I can see why Melbourne therefore decided to overlooked him. (Also I doubt it would be possible to fit both Rivers and Talia into the one side.) Moreover, AFL forward structures are including fewer key forwards these days and we already have plenty of tall defenders on our list.

• I found it interesting that we were not willing to risk Gysberts sliding to pick 18. We must have had an inkling that someone would take him beforehand. Otherwise we might have taken Lucas at pick 11 given that we ranked them very closely.

• While I certainly do not place a heavy premium on ruckwork, I am glad we went for a ruckman with a clear competitive advantage (in Max Gawn). These days I see the ruck as a position where it is a significant benefit to be either much taller than the opposition ruckman like Sandilands or be more athletic around the ground (while being at least competitive in the clearances) like Ryder and Clarke. I think ruckman are better off being at either of these two extremes rather than being somewhere in the middle.

• I see Nathan Vardy as being one of these in between types (that has no real competitive advantage) and I think he will be only ordinary at AFL level.

• It was also very interesting that Hawthorn selected Sam Grimley ahead of Vardy. While Grimley is very athletic, he is just about as raw as it gets.

• Gawn’s knee injury could have been a blessing in disguise for us. He probably would have gone much earlier had he played the whole year. I think it is a good strategy to go for high risk/reward type selections with later picks in the draft (like Gawn, Tom Swift or even Michael Newton) rather than what I would call ‘safe’ choices, such as Petterd, Bail or Cheney.

• While it would have been a great story, I am glad we did not go for either Dylan Grimes or Liam Patrick. We just have too many players like Grimes already on our list (especially when you include Joel Macdonald) and I am not sure that Patrick has the natural skill level for AFL.

• Luke Ball would have gone much earlier had he not put such a price on his head. I expect him to now sign on for a third year on minimum wage and I hope the AFL rules won’t allow him to take a pay cut for the next two years.

Gysberts the club simply rated highly, at a rung above all but a couple of other options, and we took him.

Tapscott was at a very good 'price', Gawn also.

It's possible that we'll end up with one of those 'all time great steals' with Fitzpatrick.

He was in Champion Data's top25 at the start of the year, after all.

I think this draft will go down as historic, a turning point where we cashed in on top picks, made good use of good picks, and got fantastic value from lower picks.

Still fingers crossed that Juice or the Meese get picked up in the PSD (we are committed to MacDonald) so we can Rookie list Dylan Grimes (who would now be our next preference). Otherwise, we may have to trade Brad Miller t Gold Coast for Grimes and a pick next year .

I agree that these quality mid fielders are like gold, and will complement the likes of Sylvia, Davey, Grimes, Breeze, Morton very nicely - one and all quality kicks and hard at it.

However, I believe the real gem of the draft for us is Gawn. From what we can see of him, he looks like a 208cm version of Jeff White. He could be anything, and the thought of him feeding this fleet of foot, hard at it mid-field in the middle, kicking accurately to the likes of Watts, Jarrah and Green could develop into the most potent combination in the league. Nobody gets close to that combination. Some have elements of it: Carlton with Judd, Femantle with Sandilands, even the cats with their mid field and forward line, or the Saints with their powerful forwards, but no-one has all three like we could potentially have.

Roll on 2010.

Anyway ,enough of Luke Ball! He is ancient history as far as Melbourne recruiting goes and it's getting tiresome talking about him!

Let's Luke ahead and be proud of the players we DID pick up and of our recruiting staff!

I agree. Let's Luke forward and only use that name in reference to Tapscott or Trengove's Sturt Coach Norman ( a former Demon ).

If you knew a bit more about Gysberts, do you think you still would have made that Lucas for Gysberts change ?

I must confess I've not even seen any of his Highlights before and I hadn't even considered he was on the radar. I have on the other hand watched a bit of Lucas footage and was impressed by him so I guess only time will tell. I would have thought that Lucas was more highly credentialed than Gysberts but as I said, before today I hadn't even seen any thing of him. Must also confess I wasn't overly impressed by what I saw but obviously the FD was and they know far more than I do.

I think BP has done an excellent job. I am rapt with what we got!

Scully & Trengove obvious picks.

I thought Pick 11 would have been used on a tall. But after looking at Gysberts highlights. I think we may have a gun midfield/forward. He looks really good and is 190cm. He will be a gun!

To get Gawn at 34 was really good. He can take a pack mark and kick a goal too. His size is something we miss!

He is only 17 too. So I think he might be the tallest player very soon. 208cm! He is a monster!

Fitzpatrick could be a steal. I wouldnt just expect him to ruck. Thats Gawns job. But will rotate with him at times. He looks very capable of playing forward and back. 201cm he moves like a midfielder. He will be hard to match up on I think and is a very versatile player.

It would be great to pay out Newton and Meesen. They have not shown enough!

We need 2 spots on our rookie list! 2 of Grimes, Patrick, Panos or a Temel would be great!

I haven't been a fan of Fitzpatricks, this year. Last years champs I was,, as I was with Butcher.

I watched Fitzpatrick this year at TAC games & thought he was lazy looking compared to his TAC Carnival efforts. This was off putting to me. However I don't mind one bit taking him with Pick 50. This could prove to be good.

I haven't been a fan of Fitzpatricks, this year. Last years champs I was,, as I was with Butcher.

I watched Fitzpatrick this year at TAC games & thought he was lazy looking compared to his TAC Carnival efforts. This was off putting to me.

Chronic fatigue sydrome would do that to anyone.

It's a matter of whether this year, with CFS, is a better indication of his true form than last year, without CFS. That is, whether or not he can throw off his CFS, like Alistair Lynch seemed to do. If he can, then we might have picked up an absolute steal.